I have never seen the original Trainspotting film and, if I’m being completely honest, I didn’t even really know what it was about when I stepped into the T2 Trainspotting screening. I hadn’t seen a single scene from the original film, never seen a movie by director Danny Boyle and hadn’t even seen the trailer to T2. It may be the blindest I have ever walked into a film, which actually gave me a level of curiosity toward the movie that I seldom get to experience because of my own, self-inflicted over-saturation of film content. Maybe that’s why I enjoyed the film so much, as I was extremely pleasantly surprised by something that I went into as fresh and blind as feasibly possible.​T2 Trainspotting is the 20 years later sequel to the sort-of cult classic original film, which followed four heroin addict friends through their debaucherous lives in Edinburgh and London. T2 shows where these characters have ended up in the modern day, each of them still somewhat roped in to their lives of the past. Mark Renton (Ewan McGregor) returns to Edinburgh to return the money that he stole from his friends 20 years ago. Simon (Jonny Lee Miller) has moved from heroin to cocaine, blackmailing rich people into getting more money for more powder. Daniel (Ewen Bremner) is still an addict, clinging on to his sad, old life with little hope left. Franco (Robert Carlyle) has been in prison for the past 20 years, and busts out to continue his thieving life. As the four men cross paths once again, they start to fall back into the lives that screwed them up in the first place.

T2 truly shines in the way that it carries out these characters' stories and intertwines them into the mess that they call their relationships and lives together. And a lot of what makes the story-telling so great is the movie's almost visceral style. The film practically drips with funky visuals that kind of make the audience feel as high as the main characters. The editing and camera work tell the story as well as the actual dialogue, taking us through the main characters' head spaces and helping the audience understand what each of them is going through. This movie has too many cool shots and cinematographic moments to count, and it is the focal point of the film’s quality.

The characters and dialogue are intriguing as well, following these extremely flawed but somehow still loveable junkie-criminals as they try to reclaim their old lives. The four leads all do an excellent job as their respective roles, each of them bringing a different type of manic energy to their characters. The only major issue I had here (and I blame my dumb, American ears for this) is that I occasionally had a difficult time understating the dialogue through the thick Scottish accents. Sometimes the movie help you out on this front, using stylish subtitles to help less acclimated audience members understand what the hell some of the characters (mostly Franco) are saying.

T2 is an excellent piece of filmmaking, and one of the most interesting looking movies I have seen in a long time. If you’re the kind of person that doesn’t love overly stylized camerawork and visuals and prefers a lot of very straight-forward storytelling, this probably isn’t for you. But, in my mind, this was a welcome change in a sea of similarity.

As a huge science fiction geek, I am very excited for the large number of sci-fi movies being released this year. 2017 looks like it may be the best year for sci-fi in a long time, with a diverse enough group of films to appeal to a wide range of tastes. There’s cyberpunk (Ghost in the Shell), space opera (Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets), social sci-fi (The Circle), action-comedy (Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2) more cyberpunk (Blade Runner 2049) and more space opera (Star Wars: The Last Jedi). And, of course, there’s sci-fi horror, with the big release being Alien: Covenant on May 19. However, there’s also another sci-fi horror film being released this year (today in fact): Life.

Life is about a group of astronauts on the International Space Station who intercept a spacecraft carrying a soil sample from Mars. They soon determine that the sample contains the first discovery of extraterrestrial life, a strange lifeform which is soon nicknamed Calvin. But while studying Calvin, the astronauts soon discover the organism may not be as harmless as it appears.

I remembered when I first saw the trailer for this film, it immediately reminded me of a mashup of Gravity and Alien. Well, turns out, that is exactly what the film is (although not as good as either of them). The weakest aspect of the film is the plot, which is very basic and paint-by-numbers. If you’re at all familiar with the genre you can easily figure out exactly what’s going to happen- astronauts find alien, alien grows rapidly, something bad happens, astronauts start dying. Plus, there are a number of fairly large plot holes, which left me wondering such things as: why is there a flame-thrower on a space station (because of the whole fire makes everybody die in space thing), and, why was the grew not informed about proper quarantine procedures (because that seems like pretty important information they should know)? However, once the meat of the film starts to happen and the alien starts to kill people, the movie does pretty well at generating suspense, the bread and butter of any horror film.

The parts of the film other than the plot, however, are much more competently done. The film features an ensemble cast including Jake Gyllenhaal, Ryan Reynolds, and Hiroyuki Sanada, all of whose acting is decent enough (even if Gyllenhaal is given some pretty crummy dialogue at times). The effects, while not up to the ridiculously high standards set by Gravity, are also decent. The set design, in particular, is quite well done, even if it’s not exactly accurate to the real life International Space Station.

In summary, Life is a serviceable but certainly not ground-breaking sci-fi horror flick. I certainly didn’t mind seeing it, but it’s also not a film which warrants much thought after afterwards. If you’re a fan of the genre and you’ve already seen some of the better movies that have been released recently (*cough* Logan and Get Out *cough*) than you could do worse than seeing Life.

​I’d like to preface this review with the fact that my viewing of this movie was slightly hindered by the fact that there was a mistake in the shipping of the film to the movie theatre. Essentially, the copy wasn’t formatted properly, and thus the top and bottom of each shot was cut-off for the film to fit the screen properly. You may be thinking “That’s an extremely arbitrary thing to put in the review”, and I would have to wholeheartedly agree with you. I highly doubt my opinion of the movie would have been any different had the film not been cut-off, but I honestly couldn’t think of any other way to open this review of a movie that feels so hollow and lifeless.

Wilson is a comedy-drama based on a graphic novel of the same name, which follows a lonely and overly honest man named Wilson (Woody Harrelson) as he attempts to reconnect with his estranged wife Pippi (Laura Dern) and his daughter Claire (Isabella Amara). As Wilson attempts to rekindle lost relationships and find happiness in an otherwise empty life, he goes through a series of wacky scenarios, most of which he gets himself into through his proclivity to speak with brutal honesty.

In a lot of ways, this movie reminds me of 2016’s The Meddler in which Susan Sarandon played a woman who was trying to re-ignite her life and rekindle a relationship with her adult daughter after her husband dies. The problem is, I didn’t like The Meddler. And Wilson manages to take everything I did like about that movie and ruin it, while simultaneously compounding the issues that were apparent in The Meddler. The major issue with both of these films being the supporting characters, who so lack any meaningful characterization that the film seems to hope that you forget that they are there while the lead shines. Amara and Judy Greer, who plays Wilson’s dog-sitter, are given nothing to work with besides being tools for Wilson to work off of. And Dern, whose character left Wilson for reasons that would be apparent to anyone who sees the film, seems to stumble through a character who begins to fall back on hard times because of Wilson’s constant persistence.

But the main problem with the film rides with its titular character (this is where The Meddler actually managed to work). Wilson is an unlikeable loud-mouth, who thinks of himself as a people person while actively doing and saying things that only assholes would do or say to another human being. Maybe this was supposed to make him charming, but he merely comes off as someone you would hope to never bump into under any circumstance. And this makes it very difficult to watch what is essentially 101 minutes of the director and writer seeming to want you to either sympathize or agree with Wilson.

Not only is Wilson nigh insufferable at the beginning of the film, but what seems to be a complete lack of any arc leads to even more annoyance when the film tries to convince you that he has changed. At the end of the movie, we are supposed to feel as though Wilson has learned from his mistakes and is now living a happy life with people who actually care about him. The problem is that, right up until the movie ends, Wilson is still doing and saying reprehensible things that make him completely detached from the idea of likability. Slap on the fact that the comedy isn’t funny and the dialogue that is meant to seem eye-opening sounds extremely outdated, and you have a soulless adaptation. Wilson is sluggish and awkward, a piece of film that feels dead-on-arrival.​Grade: D+

Around one year ago, I wrote a review of Terrence Malick’s film Knight of Cups. I did not care for it, and at the end I expressed a hope that his next film, then titled Weightless, would be an improvement. Well, I have now seen this next film, now called Song to Song. Unfortunately, my optimism was misplaced, because for all intents and purposes it is the exact same movie as Knight of Cups. ​This time, instead of Christian Bale playing a Hollywood screenwriter, we have a trio involved in the Austin music scene: two musicians named Faye and BV (played by Rooney Mara and Ryan Gosling, respectively) and a record company executive named Cook (played by Michael Fassbender). And… things happen. They meet each other, start dating, break up, date other people, get back together. They meet other people (the film also includes Natalie Portman and Cate Blanchett), have affairs, go to rock shows, and narrate long voice-overs about the meaning of life. At one point Faye mentions that she thought she could live “song to song”, and as far as I can tell that is supposed to be what this movie is about.

But here’s the rub. As anyone who’s ever watched a Malick film knows, his films always place more emphasis on visuals and tone and mood than traditional characterization or plot. But all in all of his post-Tree of Life films the characterization and plot are stretched so thin as to be non-existent. I don’t mind when his earlier films take flights of fancy, but without some sort of plot to ground the movie I can’t care about the airy spirituality he so loves to talk about in his films. In The Tree of Life, the experimental portions were grounded by a family shook by a loss of faith from the death of a son and the loss of innocence, while The Thin Red Line explores the psychological effect of war on soldiers. Without this grounding, Song to Song ends up feeling more like a slideshow of (admittedly gorgeous) pictures rather than a movie, since movies are supposed to have a narrative.

This is not helped by the fact that Malick’s last three films (including Knight of Cups and To the Wonder) all feel like the same story told repeatedly. They’re all about very successful and attractive people who are unable to find love despite having relationships with numerous other attractive people. We get it Malick: you have a lot of regret from past relationships, but please make a movie about something else already. Or, if you’re going to keep making movies like this, at least mix it up a bit in terms of the people and places in your films. Cast some people other than the Hollywood A listers you always use, and go with your incredible cinematographer (Emmanuel Lubezki) and create some beautiful movies in South America or Asia or anywhere other than Texas and Los Angeles.

I know that I’m repeating a lot of the same things I wrote about Knight of Cups, but I can’t help it since they’re basically the same movie. Even if you’re a die-hard Malick fan like me, I’d hesitate to recommend this movie to you. Although I’ll probably be disappointed again, I do hope that since Malick’s next film, Radegund, is a historical drama it will force him to actually use a script again. Hope springs eternal, I suppose.

Ah, rafraîchissant… It's nice that, in the era of constant remakes, corporate behemoth Disney is actually getting it right. Honestly, they don't have a choice: Disney’s classic stories and characters are too close to our hearts, too important in our collective culture. So thankfully, director Bill Condon delivers with Beauty and the Beast, the latest in Disney's reimaginings of classic fairy tales. He and writers Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos do the story and the original movie justice, never subtracting from the fantasy or the magic, just adding another chapter. They got the tone just right, leaving me with a smile from the first musical number onward.​As soon as that famous Disney logo with that famous song ended, I was immediately swept up in the stunning visuals of the film. They were opulent and lush all around, every detail helping to transport you, putting you back in that place of childhood when it wasn't so hard for you to commit fully to the imagination, to believe in the unbelievable. Moreover, the music was great (of course), with the immaculate vocals and the grand choreographed performances of the songs really being the foundation of the film. You could tell who was a classically-trained singer and who was not (looking at you EW), but all did beautifully well, culminating in a symphonic feast that matched the feast of the visuals.

And the actors were all sooo good… I absolutely loved the Gaston (Luke Evans) of the first half of the movie and his meilleur ami Le Fou (Josh Gad). Evans and Gad had so much fun with the characters, with Evans causing viewers to fall in love with the infamous villain. He’s almost too lovable, in that it causes his inevitable downfall to not feel quite cathartic enough. And it was so nice to laugh, with Gad hitting the comedic marks just right even in the midst of grand musical numbers. And the entire animated furniture ensemble shined through the CGI, particularly with Ewan McGregor as Lumière charismatically leading one of the best numbers of the film in “Be Our Guest.” It’s too bad we weren’t treated to more of Audra McDonald’s striking soprano in her role as Madame Garderobe, though.

The storytellers decided to add the backstory of Belle’s mother, which was a nice addition, though only a minor plot point that solely serves to help foster Belle's love for the Beast. And speaking of… I really feel that we don't have enough time with the Beast to really fall in love with him (much the opposite of Evans’ magnetism as Gaston). At the end, we only root for him because we know to from our familiarity with the original tale, not because the movie earns it by the end. In fact, the characters of the move’s namesake were some the least interesting characters of the entire film. It didn’t pose a huge problem while watching, but Emma Watson and Dan Stevens were certainly upstaged, as it were. The latter simply suffered from a lack of time to develop enough impact and depth in the character, while I would argue that the former was miscast in the role; not elevating the character, or selling the character’s storied adventurousness, headstrong and witty nature, or edge. And while I’m complaining, I wish there was a larger presence of the French language in the film; it would have helped ground the sense of location, and really would have just felt more right.

However, in the end, all the components of the film, while feeling a little rushed, really worked together to feel completely lovely, fantastical, and truly magical. The film takes viewers on an emotional journey, moving me to the brink of tears more than once. Moreover, the core of the story is so timely, delivering a powerful and pertinent message: it's what's on the inside that counts. No matter someone's exterior or past or even current situation, you can always connect, always feel, and always love, past difference, past hatred, past judgment. It was beautiful and simple, magical yet real, reminding us that human nature is often the most monstrous when steeped in hatred instead of understanding and love.

One of my favorite graphic novel writers, Alan Moore, once said that: "Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel.” It’s one of the fundamental divides between fiction and reality; in fact, the concept of genre is so fundamental to fiction that most works cannot function without it. Each genre comes with an associated collection of tropes which we as viewers come to recognize, and then use to organize our viewing of fiction. When we watch a science fiction movie, we generally know what to expect from it, and if the movie suddenly started throwing tropes from romantic comedies at us we would likely react negatively. But once in a while a film is able to deftly defy genre conventions, and Personal Shopper is one of them.​Maureen (Kristen Stewart) is an American living in Paris. By day, she works as a personal shopper for a famous French model named Kyra (Nora von Waldstätten), buying her new dresses and jewelry to wear at fashion shows. But by night, she works as a medium, trying to contact the spirits of the dead. In particular, she is attempting to contact the spirit of her recently-deceased twin brother, Lewis. She and Lewis, also a medium, had promised each other that whomever died first would send a sign from the other side. But after three months of fruitless waiting, she is just about to give up.

Directed by Olivier Assayas (Clouds of Sils Maria), Personal Shopper is an odd mixture of different genres. On the one hand, it has its supernatural elements, but it never quite lapses into horror territory. Rather, it’s reminiscent of how Guillermo del Toro’s Crimson Peak described itself not as a “ghost story” but as a “story with ghosts in it”. The film never really uses its ghosts to scare the viewer, though they are used to build tension to impressive effect. Yet the movie also use more grounded ways to create suspense, and sometimes even mixes the supernatural with the ordinary in an unusual manner; one example is when Maureen has a bizarre conversation via text message with either a stalker or a ghost. The film leaves the nature of this and many other details ambiguous.

And finally, it’s also a personal drama and character study, and in this respect Kristen Stewart shines. Although it’s easy to forget because of her role in the Twilight franchise, Stewart is a highly skilled actress when paired with an accomplished director, and between this and Clouds of Sils Maria she seems to have made a connection with Assayas. What this character study is actually trying to say, however, I’m not sure about; it’s definitely something regarding grief and loss, but the precise meaning was lost on me. This is a movie I feel that you need to watch twice before all the subtleties become apparent.

A fascinating mixture of supernatural aspects, character drama, and thriller elements and a tour de force for Kristen Stewart, Personal Shopper is an unusual yet intriguing story “with ghosts in it”. If you’re looking for something a little outside the ordinary, I’d say Olivier Assayas’ genre-busting film is a good pick.

As much as I love to write (and I really love to write) there are some moments when words fail me (written words- spoken words fail me frequently). One such moment is now, as I sit here trying to think of a snappy way to start this review. I only saw this movie about 24 hours ago, and I really feel like I need a couple more days to process it before I put words to paper. However, the release date is tomorrow (now today, as you read this) so I’m just going to tell it to you straight as possible.​Raw, by French director Julia Ducourau, is about a young woman named Justine (played by Garance Marillier) who has recently been accepted to veterinarian school. She is following in the footsteps of both her parents and her older sister Alexia (Ella Rumpf) who is an upper classmen at the same school. In addition to the whole family sharing a profession, they also have another trait in common: they are all vegans. But during the school’s rush week, Justine very reluctantly eats a raw rabbit liver as part of an initiation ritual. Although Alexia assures her it is a harmless gesture, it soon becomes apparent that the consequences of this decision will be dire.

Alright, I do know how else to say it, so I’m just going to be blunt: this is a movie about cannibalism. Okay, I suppose it’s not really a movie about cannibalism- the cannibalism is actually a metaphor for sexual desire and a myriad of other topics. But it is a movie that has a lot of cannibalism in it, and it is really, really… detailed. It is exceptionally graphic and quite disturbing, even to someone who regularly watches highly graphic films- I thought the ultraviolence in Logan was one of the things that made it so great, but this movie is in a whole different ballpark.

Raw is one of a fairly small category of films which are exceptionally well-made films, but are also intentionally unenjoyable, whether to make an artistic statement or a political point point. It reminds me a lot of the 2014 film Nightcrawler, in which Jake Gyllenhaal plays a horrifying sociopath; Raw is the same sort of thing but replacing the sociopathy with cannibalism. And that’s why I find it hard to recommend the film; it very well-made, with excellent acting, writing, cinematography, and some really interesting commentary about female sexuality. But at the same time it is profoundly unpleasant to watch. ​So, the grade below is purely based on technical aspects, because I really don’t know how else to rate it. If you don’t mind seeing such a disturbing movie, than you’ll certainly appreciate the quality. But really do be careful about it- I thought I was ready for this movie and I really, really wasn’t.

I must admit, I am not the kind of film goer who gets really excited at the prospect of a kaiju movie. I’ve seen both the 2014 version of Godzilla and Guillermo del Toro’s Pacific Rim, and I thought they were both okay. For whatever reason, though I like a good action movie as much as the next guy, giant monsters fighting just doesn’t really do anything for me. After this disclaimer, you’re probably wondering why I’m writing this review; good question, because I’m still not sure why I decided to see it either. Regardless, it quickly became apparent that Kong: Skull Island is a film for fans of the genre, and that it will make those fans happy.

The film takes place in 1973, just as the Vietnam War is winding down. The head of the research agency Monarch, William Randa (John Goodman), has managed to get the US government to fund a mapping mission to one of the last unexplored places on Earth: a previously unknown island in the South Pacific nicknamed Skull Island. He puts together an expedition including former British special forces operative James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston), famous anti-war photographer Mason Weaver (Brie Larson), and US Army Lieutenant Colonel Packard (Samuel L. Jackson) to provide security. But once they reach the island, everyone realizes that theirs is not a simple mapping mission after encountering multiple giant monsters on the island. And the biggest of them all is an ape, called Kong.

Kong: Skull Island is an odd beast. One the one hand, the film gleefully indulges in every kaiju movie trope imaginable and never takes itself incredibly seriously, much like the aforementioned Pacific Rim. On the other hand, the film’s setting, visual style, music and character archetypes are reminiscent of Vietnam War movies, with multiple references to Apocalypse Now in particular. And then sprinkled on top of both of those are slivers of Heart of Darkness (Hiddleston’s character is named Conrad for frak’s sake) and Moby Dick (Jackson’s character quickly proves to be an expy of Captain Ahab). It’s a bizarre mixture that actually works a lot better than it has any right to, as the film’s period piece elements give it a unique feel, at least in the realm of kaiju movies.

But, let’s get to what everyone really cares about: the giant monster fights. Yes- Skull Island has lots of them. And yes- they are pretty cool, even to someone who isn’t a huge fan of the genre. The island is home to a variety of bizarre fauna, almost all of which either the human characters or Kong himself have to fight over the course of the film’s 118 minute run time. Therefore, we get a mixture of ‘traditional’ giant monster fights and gunfights, which helps to keep things interesting, though I was getting a bit weary of them by the two hour mark. Though, like I said, I’m not a huge fan of the genre.

The film has a number of drawbacks though. The film’s large ensemble cast, though allowing for a large number of characters to become tasty monster snacks, keeps everyone fighting for screen time and prevents all but a few of them from getting any meaningful characterization. A few of the actors, such as Jiang Tian and Thomas Mann, barely get to do anything at all, begging the question of why the screenwriters even wrote their characters.

All in all, Kong: Skull Island is a giant monster movie for people who really like giant monster movies. And that’s fine- it’s just not my cup of tea. But maybe it’s yours because you grew up watching old King Kong and Godzilla movies. Oh, and in case you didn’t know: this film and the 2014 Godzilla take place in the same fictional universe, and Godzilla vs. Kong is already scheduled for a May, 2020 release.

As both a film buff and a general geek, I find it fascinating to see how film franchises evolve over the years. The X-Men franchise is an excellent example of a series that has changed dramatically over time. Now spanning ten films and seventeen years, the series has grown from modest roots to become one of the juggernauts of the superhero genre, second only to the MCU in terms of commercial success. Over the years we’ve gotten to see many different concepts of what an X-Men movie should be like, from the original X-Men team in the first trilogy to the new and younger versions of characters introduced in First Class to the gory, absurd comedy of Deadpool. Logan is not only another new interpretation of the X-Men series, but it is quite possibly the best movie in the entire series.​It is the year 2029, and mutants are nearly extinct (for those fans trying to figure out how this fits into the series’ timeline, don’t bother- Logan is a completely stand-alone film). No new mutants have been born in over 20 years, and most of the familiar faces are long dead. One of the few left is Logan (Hugh Jackman) who spends his nights driving a limo around El Paso, Texas and his days caring for (a by now incredibly old) Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart). Over the years Logan’s healing factor has slowed down significantly, and Xavier has grown senile. They try to live quietly without attracting attention to themselves, until they discover something amazing: a mutant child named Laura (Dafne Keen). But Laura is being hunted, and it’s not long before Logan is reluctantly dragged back into the role he once played: the Wolverine.

The most interesting thing about Logan is that it doesn’t feel like a superhero movie at all. Rather, it’s more like a gritty, modern Western. It’s surprisingly grounded, fairly slow-paced, and shockingly downbeat and grim. Imagine No Country For Old Men, but with Wolverine in it. The film is both physically and emotionally raw, in contrast to how squeaky-clean and polished most superhero movies tend to be. And I don’t just mean in terms of tone and visual style.

What I mean the is the violence. Dear God, the violence. If you thought Deadpool was violent, than buckle your seatbelts, because Logan is even more graphic. Although it might just be because, unlike Deadpool which played its ultraviolence for laughs, Logan is dead serious and plays the violence completely straight. It finally answers the age-old question of what a (serious) R-rated superhero movie would be like. And it’s so, so good. I wrote in my review of X-Men: Apocalypse that the film didn’t really have any action sequences- it was just a bunch of people standing around on green-screens with CGI effects painted over them. Logan is the exact opposite of that: it’s just Wolverine running around stabbing people in the face, with a smattering of gun fights and car chases for good measure. ​But unlike the Punisher films for example, Logan never falls into the trap of relying on its ultraviolence to carry the movie, because Logan is a genuinely great film in virtually every aspect. The acting, in particular, is fantastic. This is likely to be Jackman’s last film as Wolverine, and he brings an emotional depth and soulfulness to the character never before seen in the series, and rarely seen in superhero movies period. This is a Wolverine that alternates between bone-deep tiredness and simple, sheer rage, filled with both physical and emotional pain. If this is indeed his last time with the claws, it is certainly a fitting swan song. This may also be Patrick Stewart’s final time as Professor X, and instead of occupying the loving grandfatherly role we are accustomed to he is now a grumpy, senile old man (and yes, a psychic going senile is exactly as scary as it sounds). But it is Dafne Keen, in her first film role at the age of twelve, who nearly steals the whole freaking movie, despite the fact that she doesn't speak for about two thirds of it. I’ve seen a lot of discussion comparing her to Eleven from Stranger Things, and that would be true to an extent- if Netflix would let her use her abilities to kill people in horribly brutal fashion. Not to mention the cinematography, which is impeccable and really helps to give the movie such a strong Western vibe- it reminded me a lot of last year’s Hell or High Water visually. The only complaints I have with the film are a few bits of the plot that felt a little far-fetched or had some holes, but considering how good every other aspect of the film is this is simply a minor issue that you likely won’t even notice, and it doesn’t take away from the phenomenal emotional depths the three main characters all convey.

Logan is an anomaly. A superhero movie that looks and feels like a Western. An R-rated action flick with ridiculous ultraviolence but also incredibly compelling characters. A downright grimdark superhero movie that dares to defy Marvel’s campiness and beats down DC’s pathetic attempts at darker fare. This is how to do a dark, serious, superhero movie- a grounded style, incredible dramatic performances, and the embrace of the R rating. Logan is not only one of the (if not the single) greatest X-Men movie, it is possibly one of the greatest superhero films ever made. I cannot recommend this movie enough, unless you’re squeamish about ultraviolence.

Land of Mine is Danish-German historical drama film about one of the lesser-known, but still tragic, episodes of the Second World War. Shortly after the surrender of Germany, around 2,000 German POWs captured by Allied forces in Denmark were forced to clear the country of landmines. Many of them were only teenagers, and half of them were killed or maimed in the process. The film focuses on a group of about a dozen of these prisoners, overseen by a Danish army officer- Sgt. Rasmussen (Roland Møller). Although he hates the Germans for what they did to his country, over time he slowly becomes fond of the group, all of whom are just teenagers. But clearing mines is dangerous work, and not all of them will make it out alive.

Land of Mine, which was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Feature this year, is definitely a “movie with a message”. The film is anything but subtle, as is apparent by the title. However, although the movie can be heavy-handed at times, it is a well-made movie. The acting is quite good, particularly from Roland Møller but also the group of young German actors who play the POWs. The cinematography is also very attractive- the area that the groups of POWs must clear in the film is a beach of the Danish west coast, and cinematographer Camilla Hjelm Knudsen makes excellent use of the Nordic seaside.

Although it was unfortunately not released in Boston until after the Academy Awards, Land of Mine is a solid historical drama film about an unknown story from World War II that deserves to be told, and the movie is certainly worth a watch if you’re a fan of the genre.